If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's only afloat because everyone uses Office documents and Silverlight. I had to install Office 2007 on our main Arch machine to make it usable. They only have profit because they use vendor lockin. That's all. You can see this in their failure to get a hold in the mobile and tabletmarket. And I have yet to see other appliances ran by Windows.

It's only afloat because everyone uses Office documents and Silverlight. I had to install Office 2007 on our main Arch machine to make it usable. They only have profit because they use vendor lockin. That's all. You can see this in their failure to get a hold in the mobile and tabletmarket. And I have yet to see other appliances ran by Windows.

Yeah, but the vendor lock-in works. It's highly profitable. Everyone hates Windows 8, but it's at over 200million copies sold. It's almost comical, every time I read some analyst writing that we're in a Post-PC world I wonder if they wrote that article on a tablet (answer: no).

It's only afloat because everyone uses Office documents and Silverlight. I had to install Office 2007 on our main Arch machine to make it usable. They only have profit because they use vendor lockin. That's all. You can see this in their failure to get a hold in the mobile and tabletmarket. And I have yet to see other appliances ran by Windows.

I was more referring to NT on other architecture's. The only other MicroSuck OS (for what I know of) was XP on Itanium machines.

So even after imitating the competition, they are not capable of pulling it off. Despite the large amount of manpower/cash.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I think Windows is a nice OS for most people. I just fail to see the justification for their marketshare relative to their 'innovations'.

First of all, being in the middle of this period down in Silicon Valley [working at NeXT] while friends were at SGI, Sun, etc., Microsoft never had any intentions of spanning NT across all platforms. They did a bait and switch. The intent was to create cross-platform with minimal support on MIPS, Alpha and PPC while mainlining all support on X86, specifically to get a footing into the Enterprise Markets.

It worked. DEC went tits up and got absorbed by COMPAQ which got absorbed by HP, SGI went bankrupt and PPC really got curtailed.

That was the case for enterprise systems (workstation and server).
Home users only got the NT treat one iteration later, under the form of Windows XP Home. That's the point when NT really got mainstream.
Meanwhile, back at the time of windows 2000, instead of having an NT-based OS, home users had... gasp... Windows ME. Ouch!
And then one wonder why the sudden rush to Windows XP...